Comments on: The unemployed: inconvenient statistics

By: ar

ar — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As even the unlamented Count Yorga said, when he steered it through Parliament, “work for the dole is not about training but about mutual obligation…” Not obligation to create a fair society but to maintain the obligation of the poor to be misrable. Surfing dole bludgers or those who spent too long in libraries becoming socially aware were no less poor after the enforced non-jobs (often , as Elmore states, out of pocket in having to attend).
No more of that under Krudd….

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I understand what you mean, Maree, and agree, but the word “discriminating” is not what you want.

* showing or indicating careful judgment and discernment especially in matters of taste; “the discriminating eye of the connoisseur”
* acute: having or demonstrating ability to recognize or draw fine distinctions; “an acute observer of politics and politicians”; “incisive comments”; “icy knifelike reasoning”; “as sharp and incisive as the stroke of a fang”; “penetrating insight”; “frequent penetrative observations”

By: maree whitton

maree whitton — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I agree with Lionel Elmore. I find it strange that we treat the unemployed the way we do. I know there are some unemployed who work the system. But, I think the vast majority just want to have a paid job and be treated as an equal.
I think the biggest mistake the government made was when the Centrelink Job Centres were handed over to private enterprise. I agree the huge payments given to these agencies could have gone to help the unemployed such as re-education programmes, travel to and from job interviews.
The government should never have allowed business to bring unskilled labour into this country. If a job cannot be found for them, then the taxpayers should fund their rent and they should receive the same pension as the age pensioners.
During this period of financial crises all migration should be stopped whilst we help the present and the expceted future unemployed, until this crises is over.
Why are we allowed to use the term "dole bludger" when describing the unemployed, I find the word totally discriminating.

By: single mum

single mum — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Tomorrow my darling younger daughter turns eight years old. Normally that would be a cause for celebration and of course it is, but my household budget will be in mourning. Unfortunately I am in the unenviable position of being a single parent after my 18 year marriage failed last year. Applying for a single parenting payment, I was advised that in order to be eligible for it I would need to work a minimum of 15 hours per week. I was happy to oblige and found a job working 24 hours per week, more than strictly necessary according to the guidelines and despite the fact that with every extra hour I work, I lose proportionate income in my parenting payment. Not much incentive but I enjoy working and feel it contributes positively to my life. However as of tomorrow I am no longer considered a single parent as such, but am required to reapply for the Newstart Allowance (read: dole). Apart from receiving approximately $70 less per fortnight, I also have lost my right to a discounted electricity bill, pharmaceutical discounts, and discounted public transport. To top it off, despite the fact that I have stable employment, I have to register with a job agency; and I can no longer declare my earnings online but have to undergo the humiliation of lodging my form in person every fortnight at a Centrelink office. Does the fact that now my daughter is a year older mean that she will cost me less in food, clothing, school books, uniforms and fees, shoes and other necessities of life? I would think that the opposite would be true, she actually eats more as she gets bigger. As I understand it, this legislation was introduced under the Howard government. What a surprise! This would be the same draconian department that spent thousands chasing poor individuals for repayment of Centrelink debts, despite the fact that it was often the fault of the department for overpayment in the first place. Think very hard about having kids ladies….

By: Jenny Mac

Jenny Mac — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I too am amazed at the government’s punitive attitude towards the unemployed. As Maree notes, there are always people who will work the system - but what the people at the top of the financial tree, who send their company earnings offshore so they don’t have to pay taxes to support services they use more than their fair share of?. What about the people who stay in their crappy underpaid jobs and putup with routine sexual harassment and workplace bullying so they don’t have to deal with Centrelink? What about the people with a lousy education, a menatl illness or a disability that disadvantages them when looking for work? What about the long held economic “received wisdom” that uses the pool of unemployed people to exert downward pressure on inflation?? If, as a government, you create an underclass who cannot afford to live, you increase the costs of security and safety for all those employed and law abiding citizens (or the elderly or very young) who then become targets for desperate and hungry people. Blaming the victim has a long history in this country - and others. This doesn’t make it either moral or sensible.